Many people believe that Quran was written by Mohammed (the prophet), i'm here to explain to people that an illiterate like Muhammad could not.

i will use few/many examples...all are welcome to praticipate and say thier opnions


1- creation of human at womb

The Noble Quran on Human Embryonic Development:
In the Holy Quran, God speaks about the stages of man’s embryonic development:

We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... [1] (Quran, 23:12-14)

Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot.
In comparing a leech to an embryo in the alaqah stage, we find similarity between the two as we can see in figure 1. Also, the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others. [3]

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ch1-1-a-img1.jpg


Figure 1: Drawings illustrating the similarities in appearance between a leech and a human embryo at the alaqah stage. (Leech drawing from Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, Moore and others, p. 37, modified from Integrated Principles of Zoology, Hickman and others. Embryo drawing from The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 73.)

The second meaning of the word alaqah is “suspended thing.” This is what we can see in figures 2 and 3, the suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ch1-1-a-img2-big.jpg

Figure 2: We can see in this diagram the suspension of an embryo during the alaqah stage in the womb (uterus) of the mother. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 66.)

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ch1-1-a-img3.jpg

Figure 3: In this photomicrograph, we can see the suspension of an embryo (marked B) during the alaqah stage (about 15 days old) in the womb of the mother. The actual size of the embryo is about 0.6 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore, 3rd ed., p. 66, from Histology, Leeson and Leeson.)
The third meaning of the word alaqah is “blood clot.” We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot. This is due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo during this stage (see figure 4). Also during this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate until the end of the third week. Thus, the embryo at this stage is like a clot of blood.


http://www.answering-christianity.com/ch1-1-a-img4-big.jpg

Figure 4: Diagram of the primitive cardiovascular system in an embryo during the alaqah stage. The external appearance of the embryo and its sacs is similar to that of a blood clot, due to the presence of relatively large amounts of blood present in the embryo. (The Developing Human, Moore, 5th ed., p. 65.)

So the three meanings of the word alaqah correspond accurately to the descriptions of the embryo at the alaqah stage.
The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means “chewed substance.” If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his or her mouth and then compare it with an embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that the embryo at the mudghah stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance. This is because of the somites at the back of the embryo that “somewhat resemble teethmarks in a chewed substance.” (see figures 5 and 6).

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ch1-1-a-img5.jpg

Figure 5: Photograph of an embryo at the mudghah stage (28 days old). The embryo at this stage acquires the appearance of a chewed substance, because the somites at the back of the embryo somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance. The actual size of the embryo is 4 mm. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 82, from Professor Hideo Nishimura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.)



http://www.answering-christianity.com/ch1-1-a-img6-big.jpg

Figure 6: When comparing the appearance of an embryo at the mudghah stage with a piece of gum that has been chewed, we find similarity between the two.
A) Drawing of an embryo at the mudghah stage. We can see here the somites at the back of the embryo that look like teeth marks. (The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 5th ed., p. 79.)
B) Photograph of a piece of gum that has been chewed

How could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time? Hamm and Leeuwenhoek were the first scientists to observe human sperm cells (spermatozoa) using an improved microscope in 1677 (more than 1000 years after Muhammad They mistakenly thought that the sperm cell contained a miniature preformed human being that grew when it was deposited in the female genital tract.

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages. This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person. Dr. Keith Moore is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. There, he was Associate Dean of Basic Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and for 8 years was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy. In 1984, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists. He has directed many international associations, such as the Canadian and American Association of Anatomists and the Council of the Union of Biological Sciences.

In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Professor Moore said: “It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quran about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God.”

Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question: “Does this mean that you believe that the Quran is the word of God?” He replied: “I find no difficulty in accepting this.”

During one conference, Professor Moore stated: “....Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah (what Muhammad said, did, or approved of). The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge. The intensive studies of the Quran and hadeeth (reliably transmitted reports by the Prophet Muhammad’s companions of what he said, did, or approved of) in the last four years have revealed a system for classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D. Although Aristotle, the founder of the science of embryology, realized that chick embryos developed in stages from his studies of hen’s eggs in the fourth century B.C., he did not give any details about these stages. As far as it is known from the history of embryology, little was known about the staging and classification of human embryos until the twentieth century. For this reason, the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century. The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God. He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.”

There are video links for these comments if you don't believe me.

this thread is also for those who don't believe in GOD.

2- dead sea
Q: The lowest district\land in the world?
A: answer can be found here (the dead sea)
answer can be found here..
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/11/10/dead.sea/



The lowest district in the world has been mentioned in the Quran before fourteen century.

The Quranic verse deals with the battle which took place between the Romans & the Persians at the early dawn of Islam. The Romans represent people of the holy book “The Bible” whereas the Persians were idol & fire worshipers. However, in that battle the Persians defeated the Romans. The Muslims did not like it. They did not like idol & fire worshipers to defeat the followers of a holy book. Muslims felt sad. Therefore Allah condoled Muslims by informing them a future event which will take place. In that event, Quran informed, the Roman will defeat the Persians.

Quran said “(((((The Roman Empire has been defeated – In the lowest land (even) after (This) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious – Within a few years.)))))

Ard the arabic word for land/district/earth

Loswet means in pure arabic Aqsaa.

He creates you stage by stage in your mothers' wombs in a threefold darkness. That is God, your Lord. Sovereignty is His. There is no god but Him. So what has made you deviate?"
(The Qur'an, 39:6)

Indeed this has been proven by modern embryology. That there are three stages. And they are.

- Pre-embryonic stage
In this first phase, the zygote grows by division, and when it becomes a cell cluster, it buries itself in the wall of the uterus. While they continue growing, the cells organise themselves in three layers.

- Embryonic Stage
The second phase lasts for five and a half weeks, during which the baby is called an "embryo". In this stage, the basic organs and systems of the body start to appear from the cell layers.

- Fetal stage
From this stage on, the embryo is called a "foetus". This phase begins at the eighth week of gestation and lasts until the moment of birth. The distinctive characteristic of this stage is that the foetus looks just like a human being, with its face, hands and feet. Although it is only 3 cm. long initially, all of its organs have become apparent. This phase lasts for about 30 weeks, and development continues until the week of delivery.

hi 7x7
im mohammed and i was impressed by ur thread about islam and science
im a muslim and if i was to make this thread i couldnt have done it better than u did.

mohammed, i have many more :)

3- The 40 & 42 nights


-an interview with Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson, Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Professor of Molecular and Human Genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

We were able, however, to remove his suspicion. We presented to him the text outlining the development of the embryo. We proved to him that the Qur'aan informs us that the hereditary and the chromosomal make-up of the new being take place only after a successful union between the sperm and the ovum. As we know, these chromosomes contain all the characteristics which the new human being will have such as the color of the eyes, skin, hair, etc

Hence, many of the details in the human being’s make-up are determined in his chromosomes. These chromosomes begin to form during the early nutfah stage of embryonic development. In other words, the distinguishing features of the new human being are determined from the very beginning at the nutfah stage.

Allah the Most Exalted, the Most Glorified, has stated this fact in the Qur'aan:

Woe to man! What has made him reject Allah, From what stuff has He created him? From a sperm-drop: He has created him, and then molded him in due proportion. (Qur'aan 80:17-19)


During the first 40 days of gestation, all the body parts and organs are completely, though consecutively formed. We can notice in Figure 2.1 that the organs begin to be formed, assembled, and the fetus appears twisted. The Prophet Muhammad, (sallAllahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), has informed us in a hadeeth that:

((((( In every one of you, all components of your creation are gathered together in your mothers’ womb by 40 days. (Narrated in Saheeh Muslim and Al-Bukhaari))))))))

In another Hadeeth, Prophet Muhammad (sallAllahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said

(((((((((( When forty-two nights have passed over the drop (nutfah), Allah sends an angel to it, who shapes it and makes its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones. Then he says, “O Lord, is it male or female?” and your Lord decides what he wishes. (Muslim)))))))))))))).


Professor Simpson studied these two hadeeths extensively, noting that the first 40 days constitute a clearly distinguishable stage of embryo genesis. He was particularly impressed by the absolute precision and accuracy of those hadeeths. Then during one of the conferences which he attended he gave the following opinion: "So that the two hadeeths that have been noted can provide us with a specific time table for the main embryological development before 40 days. Again, the point had been made repeatedly by other speakers this morning that these hadeeths could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of their recording."

Professor Simpson says that religion can successfully guide the pursuit of knowledge. The West, as we said, has rejected this. Here is an American scientist who says that religion, namely Islam, can achieve this with success. By analogy, if you go to a factory and have with you the operation manual of the factory, then you will be able to easily understand the kind of operation that goes on in that factory, thanks to that manual by the factory designer and builder. If you do not have this manual with you, chances are much less that you will have good understanding of the various processes there

Professor Simpson said: "It follows, I think, that not only is there no conflict between genetics and religion, but in fact religion can guide science by adding revelation to some traditional scientific approaches. That there exist statements in the Qur'aan shown by science to be valid, which supports knowledge in the Qur'aan having been derived from Allah.

I made my own search and got the following:


Week 5
Baby:

Your embryo still hasn't grown much. It's about 0.05 inches long. Heart, brain, spinal cord, muscle and bones are beginning to develop. The placenta, which will nourish your baby, and the amniotic sac, which provides a warm and safe environment where the baby can move easily, are still forming, too.

week 6

Baby:
The embryo is starting to look like a tadpole. It's about 0.08 inches to 0.16 inches -- the size of a BB pellet -- from the top of the head to buttocks. (This crown-to-rump length is used more often than crown-to-heel length because the baby's legs are most often bent and hard to measure). The eyes and limb buds also are forming. A heartbeat can sometimes be detected by an ultrasound around now. This is also an extremely important time in the development of your baby, since between 17 and 56 days the embryo is most susceptible to factors that can interfere with its normal growth

from webmed.com



the 42 and 40 nights is very precise and not just number used at the old days.

Facts of Fetal Development
Day 1 - conception takes place.
7 days - embryo implants in mother’s uterus.
10 days - mother’s menses stop.
18 days - heart begins to beat.
21 days - pumps own blood through separate closed circulatory system with own blood type.
28 days - eye, ear and respiratory system begin to form.
42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present.

Source: http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/faculty/ckaczor/Noonan.htm

Day 40: Brain waves can be detected and recorded.
Day 42: The liver is now taking over the production of blood cells and the brain begins to control movement of muscles and organs.

source: http://diskbooks.org/factsabort.html

It is not 41 it is not 39 days, it is 40 and 42 mentioned by prophet......

this is very interesting

this is very interesting

welcome, any opinions are welcome

I have many more.... keep in touch

4- creation of universe

The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition). This is one of the undisputed principles of standard modern cosmology. Scientists now can observe new stars forming out of the remnants of that ‘smoke’
[quote]
Nebula- a cloud of dust and gas in space, from which new stars are created
The first origin for material is the universe's creation itself: Soon after its birth, atoms were created in the universe, and it is from these that the first dust and gas clouds formed. This means that the gas and dust that make up this type of nebula were not created in a star, but are the original matter from the beginnings of the universe.
Read more about nebula here:
http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/stars_birth.html



Originally nebula (Latin for "mist"; plur. nebulae) was a catch-all name for any extended astronomical object, including galaxies beyond the Milky Way. This occasionally survives, but the stricter modern term is used for interstellar clouds of dust and gas, which are categorized by how they are illuminated.


Interstellar cloud is the generic name given to accumulations of gas and dust in our galaxy. Depending on the density, size and temperature of a given cloud, the hydrogen in it can be neutral (HI clouds), ionized, (HII regions), or molecular (molecular clouds). When insufficiently dense to be called a cloud, it may be referred to as interstellar dust or simply dust. Dust in an astronomical context typically has a different composition from the household meaning of dust.

Some types of nebula have special names, such as dark nebulae, emission nebulae, planetary nebulae, reflection nebulae, and solar nebulae.

In cosmogony, the solar nebula is a gaseous cloud (or accretion disc), from which, solar systems are formed. This nebular hypothesis was first proposed, in 1755, by Kant; who argued that nebulae slowly rotate, gradually condensing (due to gravity) and flattening; eventually forming stars and planets. A similar model was proposed, in 1796, by Laplace

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/thumb/1/1f/300px-Interstellar.cloud.arp.750pix.jpg

Over 200 newly formed stars are scattered within a cavern-like, gaseous, interstellar cloud (NGC 604). The stars irradiate the gas with energetic ultraviolet light stripping electrons from atoms and exciting them - producing a characteristic nebular glow.

Source :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_cloud


God has said in the Quran:

Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... (Quran, 41:11)

Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same ‘smoke,’ we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity. Then out of this homogeneous ‘smoke,’ they formed and separated from each other. God has said in the Quran:

Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?... (Quran, 21:30)

more to come.... :)

Firstly, flesh doesn’t grow around bones as obviously bones come AFTER flesh.

The problem with such analogies is that the writings quoted from the Qur’an (or any other superstitous-book) are so vague as to be interpreted to mean absolutly anything. If there really were some sort of divine-inspiration concerning biology - I’m sure it would have included something concerning DNA - maybe that a twisted molecule is used to store information. But the Qur'an doens't even mention atoms (something the Greek were keen on 1000's of years prior).

Instead we have some mumble jumble that we can obviously conclude is useless as it was never used to contribute anything whatsoever to the study of developmental biology (or curative medicine for that matter). You're taking information you have NOW and ad hoc applying it to vague verses in an ancient text.

By that sort of rational we could also conclude Greek deities were communicating information to the Greeks and therefore this information somehow validates these deities existence:

"As in the daytime there is no star in the sky warmer and brighter than the sun, likewise there is no competition greater than the Olympic Games," By the Greek poet Pindar in the 5th century BC.

This poem clearly illustrates that the Greeks knew the sun was a star just like all other stars in the universe and therefore the worship of Greek Gods is valid. (Not to mention the notion of "atoms" was an ancient Greek idea).

Anyway, we can make the point quickly, I see you have a section on the creation of the Universe. As physists are still at odds as to how it occurred. Why don’t you tell us right now, according to the Qur’an, how was the universe created? In a Big Bang? Re occurring? In one place or in many? Is there one or are there multiple?

I hope my comments are not offending, it’s just the there is nothing scientific nor useful in the phrase: “Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke” whatsoever. There just isn't any meaning.

First I would like to welcome you, I hope we can have good argument. I'm not offended and you have the right to ask.

I can't post long text based from other resoucrs beacuse it is aginst the rules of forum.





Firstly, flesh doesn’t grow around bones as obviously bones come AFTER flesh.



Read it again:

says in the Qur'aan about the stages of the creation of man: Man we did create from a quintessence (of clay); Then we placed as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place firmly fixed; Then we made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqah); Then of that clot we made a (fetus) lump (mudghah); then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. (Qur'aan 23:12-14)

First what is mudghah? Isn't it a flesh also? YES, it is.
So we get:
Flesh-Bones-Flesh covers bones (The cover here is muscles)

This indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm


from

http://www.childdevelopmentweb.com/InfoTopics/PrenatalDev2.asp

The embryonic period occurs 2 to 8 weeks after conception. During this period the rate of cell differentiation intensifies, with support systems and organs beginning to form. The zygote now forms another 2 layers of cells and is then called an embryo. The embryo's new inner layer of cells, the endoderm, later develops into the digestive and respiratory systems. The outer layer is then further divided into 2: the ectoderm and the mesoderm. The ectoderm later becomes the nervous system and sensory receptors (ears, nose, and eyes, for example) and skin parts (hair and nails, for example). The mesoderm later becomes the circulatory system, bones, muscles, excretory system, and reproductive system. Every body part eventually develops from these 3 layers.



Then it says:

"Then We developed out of it another creature."

This next part of implies that the bones and muscles result in the formation of another creature. This may refer to the human-like embryo that forms by the end of the eight week. At this stage it has distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all the internal and external organs and parts. After the eight week, the human embryo is called a fetus. This may be the new creature to which the verse refers.
I got this description from www.iad.org



No offend but you can't be better that Dr Keith Moore who approved that the Quran stages are accurate 100%


But the Qur'an doens't even mention atoms

You are totally wrong. Quran mentions the atom. You were confident by saying " Quran dose not even mention Atom" and using other confident sentences and I'm now confident that your information (if you have any) about Quran is wrong.



I preferred to post it (the atom) at separate post, read my next post please.



This poem clearly illustrates that the Greeks knew the sun was a star just like all other stars in the universe and therefore the worship of Greek Gods is valid. (Not to mention the notion of "atoms" was an ancient Greek idea).


Honestly I don't see it a big deal. They had good scientists, the discovered that the earth isn't flat. They were among the best I the world. But before Quran came we had the lowest level of knowledge at all fields.

We have big part for astronomy in Quran. I will bring some next.



I see you have a section on the creation of the Universe. As physists are still at odds as to how it occurred. Why don’t you tell us right now, according to the Qur’an, how was the universe created? In a Big Bang? Re occurring? In one place or in many? Is there one or are there multiple?


First of all, Quran isn't science book. It is religion book but also contains some scientific facts which been used by god, mainly, as proofs for disbelievers.

I'm using these proofs, to prove that prophet Muhammd did not write the quran and the Quran is the words of Allah (God)

The Quranic phrase simply says, our universe origin is clouds. Not very complicated. I have brought sources when I posted the thread before., you can read at the creation of universe thread also you can read next:


As the universe expanded, according to current scientific understanding, matter collected into clouds that began to condense and rotate, forming the forerunners of galaxies. Within galaxies, including our own Milky Way galaxy, changes in pressure caused gas and dust to form distinct clouds. In some of these clouds, where there was sufficient mass and the right forces, gravitational attraction caused the cloud to collapse. If the mass of material in the cloud was sufficiently compressed, nuclear reactions began and a star was born.
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/origin.html


Remember Quran is not a science book so not all scientific facts are in details.


If there really were some sort of divine-inspiration concerning biology - I’m sure it would have included something concerning DNA - maybe that a twisted molecule is used to store information. But the Qur'an doens't even mention atoms (something the Greek were keen on 1000's of years prior).

Again Quran is not a scientific book, but about the DNA, There is no mention to DNA (the word) in Quran, but there is very close phrase that could be used to refer to DNA and genes.

Quran says that human are going to change\modify the creatures of god. (women:118)
I don't have the english translation now.

Honestly I saw that myself during a scientific show. I saw a rabbit that can flash light blue/green color (his skin) at dark. They said that the modified his genes with sea-animal. God did not create rabbit can flash, Human changed it.
I could see that human are changing the of creatures god as god told in Quran.

5-The atom

In ancient times a well-known theory by the name of Theory of Atomism was widely accepted. This theory was originally proposed by a man called Democritus. Democritus and the people that came after him, assumed that the smallest unit of matter was the atom.

source: search for Democritus at search engines.

In recent times modern science has discovered that it is possible to split even an atom. That the atom can be split further is a development of the 20th century. Nobel Prize awarded to physicist who split the atom

Read more here :
http://specials.zdnet.co.uk/athome/feature/1999/xmas/news/12.html


In Arabic : Zarah or darah means atom.

In quarn:

The Unbelievers say, Never to us will come The Hour: say, Nay! But most surely, By my Lord, it will come Upon you by Him Who knows the unseen From Whom is not hidden The least little atom In the Heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less Than that, or greater, but Is in the Record Perspicuous. [Al-Quraan 34:3]

the phrase says that atom isn't not the smallest unit of matter.

The Quranic phrase simply says, our universe origin is clouds. Not very complicated. If the Qur’an says the Universe originated in clouds then it is saying something for which we have no evidence. There’s certainly a big difference b/w the origin of the universe and the origin of galaxies. As the prior preceded the later. So in reality, the Qur’an could say the Universe’s origin is a Baklava. As of now there is no way to know.

The account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an, ar-Razi and al-Quff is identical to that taught by Galen, writing in around AD 150 in Pergamum (Bergama in modern Turkey). Galen taught that the embryo developed in four stages as detailed below.

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mugdah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...

The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow.

Here’s an English translation of the Qur'an: Sura 23:13-14

Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (Alaqa, a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh (Mugdah), then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!
The first stage, geniture, corresponds to [nutfah], the drop of semen; the second stage, a bloody vascularised foetus with unshaped brain, liver and heart ("when it has been filled with blood") corresponds to [alaqa], the blood clot; the third stage "has the form of flesh" and corresponds to [mugdah], the morsel of chewed flesh. The fourth and final stage, puer, was when all the organs were well formed, joints were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move. If there is still some doubt about the clear link being described here between the Galenic and the Qur'anic stages, it may be pointed out that it was early Muslim doctors, including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the similarity. Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concludes
"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account ... There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages"

To me, at the very least, the writers of the Qur’an have simply copied the most famous of Greek physicians, Galen, into a verse. Galen was known through out the ME and certainly known at the time and place when the Qur’an was compiled and canonized.

Regardless, the verse is so obscure as to mean anything. And there is nothing in the verse that Galen didn't also write. So there is nothing divine about it. If some deity wanted to demonstrates it’s authenticity then it could have simply stated something clearly such that only scientists would know - such as DNA.

The Unbelievers say, Never to us will come The Hour: say, Nay! But most surely, By my Lord, it will come Upon you by Him Who knows the unseen From Whom is not hidden The least little atom In the Heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less Than that, or greater, but Is in the Record Perspicuous.

the phrase says that atom isn't not the smallest unit of matter.

I have read this three times through and I do not see where it states that an atom is not the smallest unit of matter? Which says something about the obscurity I was referring to.

If anything it seems to suggest (Who knows the unseen From Whom is not hidden The least little atom) that the atom is the smallest unit. At the very least we can conclude that anything smaller than the atom is not known to the Lord or the verse would have said that instead of using the word "Atom". By choosing the word “Atom” I must conclude that the author thought that Atom was the smallest – or doesn’t know anything smaller. As you said the atom is not the smallest unit of matter. Therefore, anything larger than the smallest could be used in this sentence. Lets word-substitute and see what it means: (Who knows the unseen From Whom is not hidden The least little Baklava. Now it seems to say anything smaller than a Baklava is unknown to God. As far as meaning is concerned Atom may as well be a Baklava.

So why pick Atom over any other measure of space?

It must have some special meaning?

As the Lord picked the word Atom I must conclude that an Atom is as small as the lord is willing to confess to knowing something about.

Lets extrapolate this out: We know that energy and mass are related. Energy can be represented by waves. Waves are indeed smaller than an atom – and in fact is how the central area (or lack there of) of the pi-orbital is explained in said atoms. As such, you and I are also represented by waves (albeit extremely small ones). We are waves. So God can not know about us (or anything made of matter).

You see the problem with obscurity and making up something ad hoc?

PS: It's ironic that the verse should end with "Perspicuous" as it is anything but plain to the understanding due to clarity and precision of presentation!!!

the Qur’an could say the Universe’s origin is a Baklava. As of now there is no way to know.
Who knows the unseen From Whom is not hidden The least little Baklava.


First, try to show some respect to other side during argument, even if you don't believe of what he is saying.
If you don't I'm not willing to continue with you.
This thread for smart people, who uses their mind and respect each other not making fun of the symbols that belong to them.


If the Qur’an says the Universe originated in clouds then it is saying something for which we have no evidence. There’s certainly a big difference b/w the origin of the universe and the origin of galaxies.

Can you give us information of what are you saying?
Where do you rate "heavens" in Universe category or Galaxy category?

Don't you read what I write?

Big Bang according to many scientists (search web site) is the origin of universe and it is based on clouds.


Nebula- a cloud of dust and gas in space, from which new stars are created
The first origin for material is the universe's creation itself: Soon after its birth, atoms were created in the universe, and it is from these that the first dust and gas clouds formed. This means that the gas and dust that make up this type of nebula were not created in a star, but are the original matter from the beginnings of the universe.


Again, next time when you write something, try to give more information and sources of what are you saying.
Not just throwing words around.


I have read this three times through and I do not see where it states that an atom is not the smallest unit of matter? Which says something about the obscurity I was referring to

The sentence is very clear, it says that god knows everything in heavens and earth even the atom and the smaller than the atom.


If anything it seems to suggest (Who knows the unseen From Whom is not hidden The least little atom) that the atom is the smallest unit


continue the sentence, don't stop.
The least little atom In the Heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less Than that, or greater, BUT IS in the Record Perspicuous.

It says that the atom or the smaller than the atom are recorded, you can not stop at the middle of sentence.


Again you make fun of yourself.
First saying that atom dose not exist in Quran and then saying that the phrase means that the atom is smallest unit of matter.

A Replay to Galen claims:

You have no one evidence that Muslims took the stages of embryology from Galen, you just came here and use your confident (which proved TO BE wrong).

Here are evidences that we didn't take them from Galen:

1- Galen's work was based on animals like you wrote above (But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time.)
He didn't say that those stages are similar to human.

2- "He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness."

the first known illustration of a fetus in the uterus was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. In the 2nd century A.D., Galen described the placenta and fetal membranes in his book "On The Formation of the Fetus." Consequently, doctors in the 7th century A.D. likely knew that the human embryo developed in the uterus. It is unlikely that they knew that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B.C. The realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed and illustrated until the 15th century.
After the microscope was discovered in the 17th century by Leeuwenhoek descriptions were made of the early stages of the chick embryo. The staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century. Streeter (1941) developed the first system of staging which has now been replaced by a more accurate system proposed by O'Rahilly (1972).


3- Galen did not discover this as far I know.

"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."

This statement is from Quran. The drop or Nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This
interpretation is supported by another verse in the Quran which states that "a human being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop")

4- he did not discover this either.
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

This part of Surah 32:9 indicates that the special senses of hearing, seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.

5- there are more of human creation I did not bring to here, due to forum rules (limited quotes)

source for above 2-5 are from (A SCIENTIST'S INTERPRETATIONS OF REFERENCE TO EMBRYOLOGY IN THE QURAN By Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C. The Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada.)
:
http://cafemuslims.tripod.com/holyquran/message/Embryology.html
http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_embryology.htm


6- Another proof from your writing that your are worng:
including Ibn-Qayyim, who [/B]first spotted[/B] the similarity

Can you tell me when Ibn-qayyim lived? At what century? Why he was the first to spot similarity between the creation of human and animals. Why he was the first one?

Answer: because Galen's books were not translated before his period.

7- From history book, Translations began at Islamic world between the 7AD and 8AD, which means more than 100 years after the prophet died. (you can search your self, I have read this before)

8- Bring me one name of Islamic/Arabic scientist lived at the period of Prophet Muhammad or before him. I Don't know any.

9- There many scientific facts mentioned by in Quran only discovered recently, nor Galen or else could before. (read my the 42 nights and upcoming posts)

Michel
I'm collecting your mistakes. ;)

1- You said (with confident) that the stages of embryology in Quran are wrong (bones and flesh)
2- You said (with confident) that Quran dose not even mention the Atom.
3- You came back to admit the stages are correct but have been taken from Galen's book.
4- You claim (with no idea what you are talking about ( that Quran says that the atom is the smallest, while the sentence is very obvious to me and the Arabic statements makes no doubt.
5- you write (or bring from anti-islam sites) with confident that Quran has taken stages of embryology while you skip important details about Galen (Animal) and the period when Muslims noticed the similarity (after the prophet by 100 years)

Next time read what you write before you press "submit"

This thread for smart people, who uses their mind and respect each other not making fun of the symbols that belong to them. 7x7, truely I am sorry, I didn't mean to make fun. Maybe Baklava was a bad choice of words. What I meant is one can say the universe began from “insert anything” and there is no way (as of now) to disprove that statement – simply because there is no knowledge pre-universe. So in essence I could say the universe started as the exhaust out from an exhaust-pipe from an inter-universal-pimped-out-sedan and there is no way to prove I am wrong.

Can you give us information of what are you saying?
Where do you rate "heavens" in Universe category or Galaxy category?

Don't you read what I write? You wrote: “The Quranic phrase simply says, our universe origin is clouds. Not very complicated. I have brought sources when I posted the thread before., you can read at the creation of universe thread also you can read next:”

Which goes with my Baklava/exhaust-pipe theory. There is no evidence that our universe’s origin is clouds. So one can say anything one likes.

Strictly speaking, there is no evidence that the Galaxies or any intergalactic objects are formed from clouds. Actually it’s quite conclusive that this doesn’t occur. Clouds are droplets of water that condense around dust particles in the atmosphere of a planet. One may say that dust floating around in space galaxies formed planets and may use the descriptive term “clouds” to describe that dust. But then again one can also say “My mind is clouded”.

Again this goes to the point of obscurity. With thousands of pages of obscure statements anything can be made to mean anything.

Big Bang according to many scientists (search web site) is the origin of universe and it is based on clouds. 7x7, the “Big Bang is just one of multiple theories that tries to explain the universe. It may actually be wrong. I personally think there’s a high likelyhood it is wrong.

Are you willing to say “for the record” that the Qur’an says the universe started off as the Big Bang theory suggests, discounting all other theories?

Nebula- a cloud of dust and gas in space, from which new stars are created. The first origin for material is the universe's creation itself: Soon after its birth, atoms were created in the universe, and it is from these that the first dust and gas clouds formed. This means that the gas and dust that make up this type of nebula were not created in a star, but are the original matter from the beginnings of the universe. You said the universe was created from dust. The Universe – not a nebula. There’s big difference b/w the two.

Anything that is hypothesized about the creation of the universe is just conjecture.

Are you stating “for the record” that the Qur’an states that atoms were created at the time the universe was created and not a ~million years later?

The least little atom In the Heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less Than that, or greater, BUT IS in the Record Perspicuous I’ll take your word on it. I don’t see how “but is” somehow added the meaning you attribute to it. And that still doesn’t explain why the word atom was used. The use of the word atom seems (to me) to suggest that the atomic unit was important. Obviously you don’t think so and say that “BUT IS” now includes everything regarless of the word use: atoms. If that is the case, then the use of atom is unnecessary and if anything worthless information included in the sentence. If you say so then I’ll agree to that.(I’d say even baffling – why include the word atom if it has no information?)

Why was the word atom included in the sentence if (as you say) god really means everything?

A Replay to Galen claims:

1) Galen did write that development occurred in stages. (as a matter of fact so did Hippocrates as well as Aristotle).

2) These are mirrored in the Qur’an as I had posted above.

Therefore one would think that that later copied the former. Which is easier (a) copying something that is well known or (b) copying something from the future that hasn’t been written yet?

So I must conclude that that portion of the Qur’an is based on writing from 1000 years hence.

As such, your argument rests on the notion that no one knew of Galen’s work as you say here:

Another proof from your writing that your are worng:
including Ibn-Qayyim, who [/B]first spotted[/B] the similarity

Can you tell me when Ibn-qayyim lived? At what century? Why he was the first to spot similarity between the creation of human and animals. Why he was the first one?

Answer: because Galen's books were not translated before his period.

7- From history book, Translations began at Islamic world between the 7AD and 8AD, which means more than 100 years after the prophet died. (you can search your self, I have read this before)

8- Bring me one name of Islamic/Arabic scientist lived at the period of Prophet Muhammad or before him. I Don't know any.

The short answer is: Harith Ibn Kalada.

To get a more full picture read on . . . . .

But how could Muhammed have known these things?

It is one thing to find the Qur'an repeating the same embryological ideas as those described originally by the ancient Greeks, but is there any way in which we can be sure that the material was familiar to the Arabs of Muhammed's day? Given that so much of what the Qur'an says is based upon Galen's beliefs, it is particularly significant that some 26 books of his work were translated into Syriac as early as the sixth century AD by Sergius of Resh' Aina (Ra's al-Ain). Sergius was a Christian priest who studied medicine in Alexandria and worked in Mesopotania, dying in Constantinople in about AD 532 [1]. He was one of a number of Nestorian (Syriac) Christians who translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac; others included Bishop Gregorius, al-Rahawy, al-Taybuti, the Patriarch Theodorus and al-Sabakti [2].

The Nestorians experienced persecution from the mainstream church and fled to Persia, where they brought their completed translations of the Greek doctors' works and founded many schools of learning. The most famous of these by far was the great medical school of Jundishapur in what is now south-east Iran, founded in AD 555 by the Persian King Chosroes the Great (also known as Anusharwan or Nushirvan), whose long reign lasted from AD 531 to around 579.

The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam Jundishapur was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time, combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine. The combining of different schools of medicine foreshadowed the synthesis that was to be achieved in later Islamic medicine [3].

Arab medicine, to deal with only one side of this question, borrowed from many sources. The biggest debt was to the Greeks ... The medicine of Jundi Shapur was also mainly Greek. There must have been Syriac translations in the library of the hospital there long before the Arabs came to Persia ... According to Ibn Abi Usaybi'a the first to translate Greek works into Syriac was Sergius of Ra's-al-`Ayn [sic], who translated both medical and philosophical works. It was probably he who worked for Chosroes the Great and it was his translations in all probability which were used in Jundi Shapur [4].

According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia and al-Qifti [5], the most celebrated early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary of Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." [6]

He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes [7]. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him [8]. He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his "teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [i.e., Muhammed] [9]. "Such medical knowledge as Muhammed possessed, he may well have acquired from Haris bin Kalda [sic], an Arab, who is said to have left the desert for a while and gone to Jundi Shapur to study medicine...On his return Haris settled in Mecca and became the foremost physician of the Arabs of the desert. Whether he ever embraced Islam is uncertain, but this did not prevent the Prophet from sending his sick friends to consult him." [10]

Harith Ibn Kalada was unable to father any children, and it is said that he adopted Harith al-Nasar (Nadr), who was apparently a cousin of Muhammed, and also a doctor by profession [43]. Interestingly Nadr mocked Muhammed, saying that the stories in the Qur'an were far less entertaining and instructive than the old Persian legends he had grown up with. Perhaps he recognised that the Qur'an had human sources for some of its stories? As a result of this Muhammed became his sworn enemy, and the Prophet put him to death following his capture in the Battle of Badr in 624 [39].

1.G. Sarton, (Williams and Wilkins, 1927) Introduction to the History of Science, vol I, pp. 423-424

2.A. A. Khairallah (American Press, Beirut, 1946) Outline of Arabic Contributions to Medicine, p. 24

3.H. Bailey (ed) (Cambridge University Press, 1975) Cambridge History of Iran, vol 4, p. 414

4.C. Elgood (Camrbidge University Press, 1951) A Medical History of Persia, p. 98

5.See for example Ibn Abi Usaybia, "Classes of Physicians" in 649 AH/1242AD; or al-Qifti, "History of the Philosophers", 624AH/1227AD.

6.M. Z. Siddiqi (Calcutta University, 1959) Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature, p. 6-7

7.E. G. Browne (Cambridge University Press, 1962) Arabian Medicine, p. 11

8.M. J. L. Young et al., (Cambridge University Press, 1990) Cambridge History of Arabic Literature: Religion, Learning and Science in the `Abbasid Period, p. 342

9.A. A. Khairallah, op. cit., p. 22

10.C. Elgood, op. cit., p. 66

Incidentally, it seems that not even Prof. Moore is sufficiently convinced by the scientific "facts" in the Qur'an to risk his reputation as a highly respected professor of anatomy in the medical establishment. The Islamic edition of his textbook not available even in the British Library or the US Library of Congress, let alone other medical libraries in Western countries presumably because he is aware that not only do the Islamic contributions in it contradict known science, but they also contradict what he has written in the standard version of his textbook. If that wasn’t the case I’m sure he’d have made sure it was at least available in one of the two of the worlds largest archives (seeing as millions of other Arabic texts are one has to wonder???).

Michel
I'm collecting your mistakes. ;)

That's good I'll admit to any mistakes and respond.

1- You said (with confident) that the stages of embryology in Qur’an are wrong (bones and flesh) I still think it is wrong. It seemed to suggest to me that bones are wrapped in meat. This suggests that bare bones are formed form something (maybe flesh) and that isn’t the case. Bone grow from within flesh.

Man we did create from a quintessence (of clay); Then we placed as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place firmly fixed; Then we made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqah); Then of that clot we made a (fetus) lump (mudghah); then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. (Qur'aan 23:12-14)

This says that the bones are clothed in flesh. THAT simply doesn’t happen. There is never a time when there are bones not concealed in flesh. They are always concealed in flesh.

2- You said (with confident) that Qur’an dose not even mention the Atom. The word “atom” definitely did not have the meaning it has today – which is as you are using it. Either that or no one from the ME thought to develop a periodic table :)

But I’ll concede the point. OK the Qur’an says Atom.

So the Qur’an has at least one Greek word in it – yes?

3- You came back to admit the stages are correct but have been taken from Galen's book. Yes they were taken from Galen’s book. No they are equally as wrong as he was.

4- You claim (with no idea what you are talking about ( that Qur’an says that the atom is the smallest, while the sentence is very obvious to me and the Arabic statements makes no doubt. I can only read what is written. If the word atom isn’t a good translation then we can blame god for making a book that wasn’t perfect enough to be universally translated – maybe making a book that was universally translatable is beyond the capabilities of god ;)

5- you write (or bring from anti-islam sites) with confident that Quran has taken stages of embryology while you skip important details about Galen (Animal) and the period when Muslims noticed the similarity (after the prophet by 100 years) I’ve added more information in the above post and I’ve included all the citations such that you can look them up. You’ll notice that ISLAMIC historians where included in the citation line up!

7X7, Hi again - I was wondering if you would be nice enough to read this other thread I posted. It's already interesting (to me) to read the responses.

A question regarding religous tolerance (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39473)

Thanx MII

7x7, truely I am sorry, I didn't mean to make fun. Maybe Baklava was a bad choice of words.


Ok, no problem.


What I meant is one can say the universe began from “insert anything” and there is no way (as of now) to disprove that statement – simply because there is no knowledge pre-universe. So in essence I could say the universe started as the exhaust out from an exhaust-pipe from an inter-universal-pimped-out-sedan and there is no way to prove I am wrong.


OK, now I can understand what are you saying and I agree with you. There is no pre-universe knowledge and human knowledge can not reach that level IMO.

Maybe the "creation of universe" (the post) means nothing to you because:

Theory + mentioned in Quran or By prophet = Fact (to me and Muslims)
Theory + mentioned in any religion book = theory (because you are atheist).

You can say (is your right) we don't know if it is true but you can also say that there are possibilities that this is true (from the facts of watching how stars and others formatting nowadays).

Maybe the "creation of universe" post means more to Muslims than other. But as I said, you can take as possibility and you can not deny it at all.

But you can ask your self,

1- How could a human figures that the universe had created from clouds 1400 years IF Big Bang (recent theory) is true?

2- Is it a message from God to tell human I do exists?

I don't know if you can find answers for that, but if someone asked me this question I would say: because Quran is from God and it can't be false.

How many crimes were solved based on small evidence or evidence with doubt and after research, truth was found. Maybe God gave this small/big evidence for disbelievers to search for the truth.

I hope you get my point.


One may say that dust floating around in space galaxies formed planets and may use the descriptive term “clouds” to describe that dust. But then again one can also say “My mind is clouded”.


I don't know what do you mean by "my mind is clouded", but I can tell you this thing.

Many human research were called theory, because they

use "perhaps" , "maybe", "could be", but Quran never used these words when talking about scientific facts of histrocal facts, or…etc.

I have question for you:

Why "perhaps", "maybe", "could be" were not used in Quran, if it was written by Muhammad?

Using these verbs would make it easier, because if they appear (the facts) are wrong then all his effort for making people following the religion could be destroyed.

I can give another example of what I mean although it could be Off Topic.

We Muslims are more concerned by historical events and future more than scientific facts.

I give 3 examples:

1- When Muslims were hundred only, they were surrounded by 10,000 disbelievers. All came to finish Islam. Muslims were building a tunnel (before the disbelievers arrive) around part of Madina (a city in Saudi). While building the tunnel prophet told all the Muslims (while he was digging ) that Muslims are going to Open (or you can say destroy) the Persian empire and the roman empire. Now how could he tell this although Muslims were in front of (un-fair battle) were disbelievers were more than them. He didn't use "maybe", "perhaps", he used YOU WILL. And that happened.

2- One of the greatest thing IMO prophet told about the Future in his Hadith, that Muslims are going to get the famous city of "Qustaintinya" (spelling, but now part of Istanbul, Turkey). He said that the leader would be great. That prophet Hadith was written in books 1400/1300 years ago, and Muslims managed only to get the city at Othman Empire something like after 800/900 years. That prophet words are written at the grave of leader of that battle, because he was great leader. Check you self how he could open the city after many nations through the history and many tries by Muslims themselves failed.

3- The return back of Jews to Palestine and non-peace situation ever between Muslims and Jews. I have taken the next text from other thread at another forum with the permission of the writer.

He wrote (
In the Quran , ALLAH had said that jews will never have peace with muslims … till judjment day …, jews can prove that the Quran is wrong just by simply stop the war and treat muslims like any other group of people…..but till now …for like 100 years and more they just didt…….does this prove anything..?? This story is mostly like the story of ABU LAHAB when god had said he would die as a kafir ( he wont enter islam), ABU LAHAB had 10 years to prove that the QURAN is not the words of ALLAH but he just didn’t….
)
Note: the writer , as he said, is only 14 years old and he is Christian not Muslim.

I hope I made my point here, none of the above was used as "maybe" or "perhaps" they all were used as WILL.

If I can see that Quran or prophet gave me clues of future and many have happened, why I should disbelieve the others including the scientific facts.

:)

Replay to Galen:

1- You missed the big part, Galen work was on animals not on human. Quran describe the human development not any kind of animals.


2- The staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century. Again Galen stages were based on animals not human.

3- You skipped this one :)

4- You skipped this one :)

6-8 :

about al Harith Ibn Kalada,

most of what you have written is true, but you make confliction, I must say.

Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him

What doe your resources claim? He was friend of Mohammad or he was the teacher of Muhammad?

First: Never heard he was friend of Muhammad ( I have read all the history of Muhammad , we called it (SIRA) , and his name never came to me. There are no stories happened between him and prophet but the one you mentioned: ((but this did not prevent the Prophet from sending his sick friends (I know he sent one man to him, not groups or all his friends) to consult him.

Second: He was not a teacher for Muhammad nor Muhammad was a doctor. Muhammad was an illiterate.

** I have searched, but I could find any information if he ever wrote a book in medicine or if he translated any of Galen's book.

** Why he was not the first to spot similarity between Quran and Galen's. Why it happened after 100 years of that?
Answer could be: He did not translate any of Galen's books.

** Galen had his mistakes. And the "the Fabric of the Human Body 1543" was written to correct Galen's mistakes. So my question, how come Muhammad took, as they claim, only the correct information from Galen's book and applied them to Human.?

** What you have written here about AL-Hartih give no one proof but only speculations.


** It seems that ani-islamic sites are depressed to find any proof but could not. They can only fool couple of people, but they can not fool "truth seekers"
.


I must correct these...




Harith al-Nasar (Nadr), who was apparently a cousin of Muhammed, and also a doctor by profession [43]. InterestinglyNadr mocked Muhammed, saying that the stories in the Qur'an were far less entertaining and instructive than the old Persian legends he had grown up with.Perhaps he recognised that the Qur'an had human sources for some of its stories?



I'M SORRY but perhaps dose not work here.

Arabs fought Muhammad badly, they couldn't accept that the idea of idol worship was wrong. They said many thing about him but they also admitted back that what they said about him were wrong.

For you information Quran challenged Arabs (they wrote great poets) to write like Quran , they couldn't, then God challenged them to write one chapter like it, they couldn't, then finally god challenged them to write one sentence similar to Quran , they couldn't. This challenge was for Arabs who claimed that Muhammad was a poet (not all of them, because they knew him for 40 years before Islam and he never wrote one sentence of poet). This challenge resulted that many Arabs became Muslims because God won.



As a result of this Muhammed became his sworn enemy, and the Prophet put him to death following his capture in the Battle of Badr in 624


This is totally wrong, Muslims never started that battle. Disbeliever of Mecca collected their men and went out to fight them. Muslims were not prepared to the war and they were only 314 men in front of 1000 men. They defeated them (by the will of Allah) and among men died at battle or after (the prisoners) were that guy. He was not killed because of what he was saying. he was killed like many others. IT WAS WAR.....

Great enemies of prophet said worse than that and they were not killed in further battles but instead after Mecca joined Islam, prophet gave the Disbelievers of Mecca freedom even for his greats enemies.



Incidentally, it seems that not even Prof. Moore is sufficiently convinced by the scientific "facts" in the Qur'an to risk his reputation as a highly respected professor of anatomy in the medical establishment. The Islamic edition of his textbook not available even in the British Library or the US Library of Congress, let alone other medical libraries in Western countries presumably because he is aware that not only do the Islamic contributions in it contradict known science, but they also contradict what he has written in the standard version of his textbook. If that wasn’t the case I’m sure he’d have made sure it was at least available in one of the two of the worlds largest archives (seeing as millions of other Arabic texts are one has to wonder???).

I don't know how you could be sure that they are not available, you said millions of texts.
But regardless, it is not important to be there. Many text are also not in these including my father books :)
But there is video link for him saying that, I don't know where it is but if I found it I can post it here.

So I make a conclusion
You could answer only the 8th of my evidences that proofed we didn't take them from Galen.


I still think it is wrong. It seemed to suggest to me that bones are wrapped in meat. This suggests that bare bones are formed form something (maybe flesh) and that isn’t the case. Bone grow from within flesh

No, they are correct. I don't need to repeat myself


So the Qur’an has at least one Greek word in it – yes?

Atom was not created by Greek, Greek discovered it only. God created the atom he can mention any kind of his creatures in QURAN.
Big different.


Yes they were taken from Galen’s book. No they are equally as wrong as he was.

you are expressing only what you believe. You believe that human stages are wrong while Dr Keith Moore says they are accurate. Who should I believe,? I choose Dr Moore.


I can only read what is written. If the word atom isn’t a good translation then we can blame god for making a book that wasn’t perfect enough to be universally translated – maybe making a book that was universally translatable is beyond the capabilities of god


Again you are making NO VALID point. Human translated the Quran, so they could do bad translation but Arabic is very pure language. In one word You can describe a sentence.
God taught you and taught me how to speak and he made us speak different languages.

Of course Mohammed didn't write the Quran, it was a collection of his sayings dictated or compiled after his death. Any similarity to modern scientific knowledge is a coincidence. The Quran was modeled after the Torah and the Bible, it's the "johnny come lately" of sacred texts, but they did have a chance to make some improvements.

Of course Mohammed didn't write the Quran, it was a collection of his sayings dictated or compiled after his death. Any similarity to modern scientific knowledge is a coincidence. The Quran was modeled after the Torah and the Bible, it's the "johnny come lately" of sacred texts, but they did have a chance to make some improvements.

Look the Torah came first. Then why believe in Gospels. Now Gospels came first why believe in the Quran. This has always been the case. Wouldn't the "jonny come lately" apply to the Bible aswell? Because Torah came first.

Jews deny Jesus, that is the same as Christian deny Muhammad. Torah, Bible are both Word of God. The thing is that it got corrupted and got changed. Islam is the fulfillment of the Two "true" religions, not the corrupted religions.

I honestly thought I had addressed the questions in the further two posts.

Let me reiterate:

1- Galen's work was based on animals like you wrote above.

Yes and Humans ARE animals. There is no question in that. We are animals. The term “animal’ is just a categorical term. Humans fall into the catgory “animal”. It’s as simply as that. We share >98% of the SAME DNA as some other animals. Many proteins made in the most simplistic animals (for example yeast - used to brew beer) are conserved up to 99.9% in humans. (That is we have essentially the same proteins.)

Your point about Galen doing his work on other types of animals makes no difference. The same stages found in one type of animal are of course found in another.

2- "He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness.

As you already read in my post Galen wrote about developmental stages. There is nothing new offered in the Qur’an other than a refining of the stages - which by the way is NOT how humans develop. Anyway, the notion of developmental stages were written 1000 (that’s ONE THOUSAND) years prior so one should expect some modification and enhancement.

That said, I find nothing divine about the stages written later as to opposed to the prior. And as a matter of fact they are both incorrect. As I pointed out, there isn’t a time when flesh is made into bone and THEN the bone is covered in flesh. And humans don't develop stage wise.

Finally, the bone is just another type of tissue. There is nothing particularly spectacular about it that it should be singled out from all the other types of tissue in the body. Yet the Qur’an singles it out as part of a "stage" in development. This so called bone-stage doesn’t even exist – there is no stage where there is JUST bone that is then covered in flesh.

So you will probably say – that isn’t what the Qur’an is saying at all. Its saying that bone is in flesh and grows from within flesh. YEAH ANLONG WITH EVERY OTHER TISSUE! Bone isn’t any more special then the hundreds of other tissue that is developing at the same so why single it out?

Why make bone a stage over anything else?

Incidentally I’m a developmental biologist. I have doctorate in developmental neuronal biology. The so called "stages" in develpment are just made-up reference points so that people can talk about this or that. They mean nothing outside of reference – as the body is continuing to develop all along. As such, anyone can pick out ANY set of time points and call them a set of stages for convience - but literally speaking the body does not develop in discrete stages.

ie: bone and muscle develop simultaneously.

Therefor, that part of the Qur'an is incorrect.

3- Galen did not discover this as far I know.

"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."

This statement is from Quran. The drop or Nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest").

Firstly, thousands of writers wrote about sperm for 5000-7000 prior.
Secondly, its the second statement that is telling – “This statement is from Quran. The drop or Nutfah has been interpreted . . . .

That’s the great thing about hindsight – it’s sometimes quite accurate!! You go from a drop of sperm in a place of rest to a meaning of dividng blastocyst in relation to zygote!!!

Well I’m sorry but the comment about sperm in a place resting doesn’t contain that much meaning! If any. And really sperm is never at rest so it's also wrong. BUT, why stop there? I mean why not say this: This statement is from Quran. The drop or Nutfah has been interpreted . . . . to mean the haploid number of chromosomes and therefore you can see even Mohammad knew about modern genetics!

4- he did not discover this either.
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

Are you going to say for the record that the sensation of feeling develops AFTER hearing and sight??

5 was a mention about other info.

Questions 6-9 were addressed in my post (specifically a whole section with citations about al Harith Ibn Kalada - making the connection b/w the Prophet and the notion of embryology).

So to summarize:
1) Other writings about embryonic development exited (even 1000s of years prior).
2) The connection was established between Mohammad and doctor al Harith Ibn Kalada as written by MUSLIM HISTORIANS (and cited).
3) Ergo it stands to reason that the Qur’an was just a rehash of previous work regarding developmental biology - maybe some updating in the 1000 years sense Galen.
4) Both were wrong anyway,

a)the notion of developmental stages are just for convince and do not really exist in nature – development is CONTINUOUS not, I REPEAT NOT, in discrete incremental stages.
b) bone is no speacial than other tissue - if so please explain why IT is given precidence over any other tissue? Ergo one could have put any other tissue and said the same.
c) sperm are never at rest.

OH yeah, and are you sure the "feeling" is develped AFTER hearing and eye sight!?!

R U going on the record with that?

Atom was not created by Greek, Greek discovered it only. God created the atom he can mention any kind of his creatures in QURAN.I understand - I ment the word Atom was created by greeks. Is the root word for "atom" in the qur'an greek? Are there any root words in the Qur'an whose origin was greek or another language?

Again you are making NO VALID point. Human translated the Quran, so they could do bad translation but Arabic is very pure language. In one word You can describe a sentence.
God taught you and taught me how to speak and he made us speak different languages.Which is more perfect - truths that can be simply translated into ANY langauge from ANY language or truths that can not be accurately translated outside of the native language?

Which are more true ;)

I think we both know . . . . .

Jews deny Jesus, that is the same as Christian deny Muhammad. Torah, Bible are both Word of God. The thing is that it got corrupted and got changed. Islam is the fulfillment of the Two "true" religions, not the corrupted religions.I think most people educated in Religious History agree that the Bible and Torah are complete fabrications taken from earlier religions. Most of the stories are just retellings from earlier peoples myths. In some instances almost exact copies. Did you know that many early Christians THEMSELVES (~50%) didn’t even believe that a Jesus character ever existed (they thought Jesus was just an allegory). As a matter of fact there is no contemporary evidence Jesus did exist and on the contrary there’s supporting evidence he didn’t!

How does that diatribe relate to what you wrote :)

Basically I’m saying that neither the Bible nor the Torah were corrupted. There is no evidence that says they were.

They are what they always were.

When we look back in history we see over and over and over again and again, religions copying other religions and turning them into something somewhat new but principly the same. That we must agree on yes? (for example, the Greek and Roman pantheons or the Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Syrian etc.. Mystery Religions).

7x7 two questions:

1) With that said doesn’t it stand to reason that Islam would be a copy of another religion? After all – it does say that it is and has stayed true where the other religions fell off to the wayside. If you just stop and think.

Just think.

Almost all religions just copied from earlier religions making improvements and calling themselves the true religions. Doesn’t that SOUND a little (just a little) like what you are trying to say? Maybe, just maybe, you’ve fallen into the trap of all past religions?

(Either that or Islam just happens to be the one instant where it is true - out of the literally thousands of other religions that had made or are making the same claim).

With this in mind you can see from my point of view can't you? It seems much more likely (to me anyway) that you were raised in a country that is predominantly Islamic and in a family that are Muslims. Hence you were raised from a very early age to believe pretty much essentially the way in which you do.

So you believe as such.

That certainly stands to reason from my point of view.

For example. Many North Koreans worship their dear leader as a God on Earth. They were raised to believe he is God incarnate. So millions believe as such. I see no difference between be raised to believe Kim Sung Il II is God and being raised to believe that Mohammed is the last Prophet. Both just take a faith to believe as such and (most importantly) both are essentially assured to be believed when taught to children from an early age.

So my question: Is there a chance you could be fooled just like all these other people?

2) This may be a difficult one, but I’d like a straight answer if you would – that is simply Yes or No.

(i) If you were born in ancient Japan. Say in the Year 400. You parents were Shinto and raised you to believe in the Shinto religion and to worship at the family alter and to give thanks to the multiple of gods. Do you think you’d believe in the Shinto religion?

(ii) If you were raised in the Hindu religion in the year 600 do you think you’d be Hindu?

(iii) If you were raised as a Tibetan Buddhist Monk do you think that you’d worship as a Buddhists?

Lastly, don’t you think it’s ironic that God only sent prophets to the peoples of the Middle East? While the vast majority of humans that God also created were sent nothing?

Isn’t it more likely that the people of the ME didn’t interact enough with the people from far away lands enough for those myths to have become part of the ME religions?

1- How could a human figures that the universe had created from clouds 1400 years IF Big Bang (recent theory) is true?I'm not sure if this is still relevent? I don't understand: 1400 years? I thought we cleared this up - we don't know what happened pre-universe.

Maybe you covered this and i didnt see it but amongst all the things you claim to be scientific facts in the Quran something painfully obvious sticks out, the first line of one of your early quotes, man was made from clay, does clay have more than one meaning? Also if something has more than one meaning it can be read with either meaning depending on what the person reading wants it to mean.

I honestly thought I had addressed the questions in the further two posts.

Let me reiterate:

1- Galen's work was based on animals like you wrote above.

Yes and Humans ARE animals. There is no question in that. We are animals. The term “animal’ is just a categorical term. Humans fall into the catgory “animal”. It’s as simply as that. We share >98% of the SAME DNA as some other animals. Many proteins made in the most simplistic animals (for example yeast - used to brew beer) are conserved up to 99.9% in humans. (That is we have essentially the same proteins.)

Your point about Galen doing his work on other types of animals makes no difference. The same stages found in one type of animal are of course found in another.

2- "He makes you in the wombs of your mothers in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness.

As you already read in my post Galen wrote about developmental stages. There is nothing new offered in the Qur’an other than a refining of the stages - which by the way is NOT how humans develop. Anyway, the notion of developmental stages were written 1000 (that’s ONE THOUSAND) years prior so one should expect some modification and enhancement.

That said, I find nothing divine about the stages written later as to opposed to the prior. And as a matter of fact they are both incorrect. As I pointed out, there isn’t a time when flesh is made into bone and THEN the bone is covered in flesh. And humans don't develop stage wise.

Finally, the bone is just another type of tissue. There is nothing particularly spectacular about it that it should be singled out from all the other types of tissue in the body. Yet the Qur’an singles it out as part of a "stage" in development. This so called bone-stage doesn’t even exist – there is no stage where there is JUST bone that is then covered in flesh.

So you will probably say – that isn’t what the Qur’an is saying at all. Its saying that bone is in flesh and grows from within flesh. YEAH ANLONG WITH EVERY OTHER TISSUE! Bone isn’t any more special then the hundreds of other tissue that is developing at the same so why single it out?

Why make bone a stage over anything else?

Incidentally I’m a developmental biologist. I have doctorate in developmental neuronal biology. The so called "stages" in develpment are just made-up reference points so that people can talk about this or that. They mean nothing outside of reference – as the body is continuing to develop all along. As such, anyone can pick out ANY set of time points and call them a set of stages for convience - but literally speaking the body does not develop in discrete stages.

ie: bone and muscle develop simultaneously.

Therefor, that part of the Qur'an is incorrect.

3- Galen did not discover this as far I know.

"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest."

This statement is from Quran. The drop or Nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest").

Firstly, thousands of writers wrote about sperm for 5000-7000 prior.
Secondly, its the second statement that is telling – “This statement is from Quran. The drop or Nutfah has been interpreted . . . .

That’s the great thing about hindsight – it’s sometimes quite accurate!! You go from a drop of sperm in a place of rest to a meaning of dividng blastocyst in relation to zygote!!!

Well I’m sorry but the comment about sperm in a place resting doesn’t contain that much meaning! If any. And really sperm is never at rest so it's also wrong. BUT, why stop there? I mean why not say this: This statement is from Quran. The drop or Nutfah has been interpreted . . . . to mean the haploid number of chromosomes and therefore you can see even Mohammad knew about modern genetics!

4- he did not discover this either.
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

Are you going to say for the record that the sensation of feeling develops AFTER hearing and sight??

5 was a mention about other info.

Questions 6-9 were addressed in my post (specifically a whole section with citations about al Harith Ibn Kalada - making the connection b/w the Prophet and the notion of embryology).

So to summarize:
1) Other writings about embryonic development exited (even 1000s of years prior).
2) The connection was established between Mohammad and doctor al Harith Ibn Kalada as written by MUSLIM HISTORIANS (and cited).
3) Ergo it stands to reason that the Qur’an was just a rehash of previous work regarding developmental biology - maybe some updating in the 1000 years sense Galen.
4) Both were wrong anyway,

a)the notion of developmental stages are just for convince and do not really exist in nature – development is CONTINUOUS not, I REPEAT NOT, in discrete incremental stages.
b) bone is no speacial than other tissue - if so please explain why IT is given precidence over any other tissue? Ergo one could have put any other tissue and said the same.
c) sperm are never at rest.

So the information is wrong regardless.

Introduction

This paper will examine the claim that the embryological development described in the Qur'an has been plagiarised from the writings of ancient Greek physicians, such as Galen. Hence, we will review what was known about embryology by the ancient Indians, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Galen, as well as the embryology found in Jewish scriptures. Then we will outline all the verses in the Qur'an, and some Hadith literature, regarding embryology and human development. In doing so it should be very obvious if there are any similarities or indeed outright plagiarism of Greek ideas which were prevalent at the time.

It should be emphasised that translators of the Qur'an usually translate according to their own understanding of the Arabic and choose words which they think best convey the meaning. Therefore, it is all the more important to refer back to classic Arabic dictionaries such as Lisan AI-'Arab, Taj AI-'Aroos Min jawahir AI-Qamoos, and Al-Qamoos Al-Muhit. This approach will enable us to eliminate any criticism of the Arabic translations and help us to understand in what sense the word was originally used. Another interesting aspect of Arabic is that it is a material language, in the sense that words are based and derived from everyday material things, which are easy to identify. So the Qur'anic descriptions of embryology use a simple yet comprehensive language.

1. Indian Antiquity

Ancient Indian ideas about embryology are to found in the Bhagavad Gita (2 BC) which describes structures such as the amniotic membrane. And the Susruta-samhita (2-3 AD), which says that the embryo is formed of a mixture of semen and blood (this idea was also held by the Greeks, as we shall see later), both of which originate from chyle (digested fats). The differentiation into the various parts of the body, arms and head occurs in the third month. In the fourth there follows the distinct development of thorax, abdomen and heart. Hair, nails, sinews and veins develop in the sixth month; and in the seventh month the embryo develops other things that may be necessary for it. In the eighth month a drawing of the vital force (ojas) to and from mother and embryo, which explains why the foetus is not yet viable. The hard parts body are derived from the father, the soft from the mother. Nourishment is carried on through vessels, which lead chyle from the mother

The factors required for the production of the foetus were thought to be

* the father's semen
* the mother's blood (sonita) or more specifically menstrual blood (artava)
* the atman, or subtle body (consisting of fire, earth, air and water in the proper proportions)
* the manas or mind, united to a particular embryo by reason of its karma.

The idea of the blood being menstrual blood is interesting as it closely resembles Aristotelian doctrine. The clotting of milk into cheese analogy used by Aristotle for the formation of the embryo occurs also in Indian embryology. The Susruta-samhita compares the creamy layers (santanika) formed in milk, to semen and blood, which through chemical changes caused by heat, produce seven different layers of skin (kala). This concept occurs again in a Sutra on embryology written in Sanskrit, "Development, 0 Ananda," Buddha is made to say, "is comparable to a vessel of milk, like as this ferments and forms a kind of kefir or cheese." (A history of Embryology, J. Needham pp 25-27, Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959).

2. Hippocratic Embryology

Hippocrates (460 - 377 BC) was a Greek physician and founder of the Hippocratic school of medicine. The Hippocratic collection of some 60 or so medical works is ascribed to various authors and was probably not written by Hippocrates. The embryological knowledge of Hippocrates is set out in three books, the treatise on Regimen, the work on The Seed the book on The Nature of the Child (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983).

In the treatise on Regimen section 9 discusses the formation of the embryo. The description is based on the fundamental physiological idea at the time, that is the two main constituents of all natural bodies are fire and water. Both of these in turn consist of heat, dryness and moisture in differing proportions.

"Whatever may be the sex which chance gives to the embryo, it is set in motion, being humid, by fire, and thus it extracts its nourishment from the food and breath introduced into the mother. First of all this attraction is the same throughout because the body is porous but by the motion and the fire it dries up and solidifies as it solidifies, a dense outer crust is formed, and then the fire inside cannot any more draw in sufficient nourishment and does not expel the air because of the density of the surrounding surface. It therefore consumes the interior humidity. In this way parts naturally solid being up to a point hard and dry are not consumed to feed the fire but fortify and condense themselves the more the humidity disappears-these are called bones and nerves. The fire burns up the mixed humidity and forwards development towards the natural disposition of the body in this manner; through the solid and dry parts it cannot make permanent channels but it can do so through the soft wet parts, for these are all nourishment to it. There is also in these parts a certain dryness, which the fire does not consume, and they become compacted one to another. Therefore the most interior fire, being closed round on all sides, becomes the most abundant and makes the most canals for itself (for that was the wettest part) and this is called the belly. Issuing out from thence, and finding no nourishment outside, it makes the air pipes and those for conducting and distributing food. As for the enclosed fire, it makes three circulations in the body and what were the most humid parts become the venae cavae. In the intermediate part the remainder of the water contracts and hardens forming the flesh."

Further in section 26 of the same treatise;

"Everything in the embryo is formed simultaneously. All the limbs separate themselves at the same time and so grow, none comes before or after other, but those, which are naturally bigger appear before the smaller, without being formed earlier. Not all embryos form themselves in an equal time but some earlier and some later according to whether they meet with fire and food, some have everything visible in 40 days, others in 2 months, 3, or 4. They also become visible at variable times and show themselves to the light having the blend (of fire and water) which they always will have."

In the treatise on The Seed sections 5-7.

"When a woman has intercourse, if she is not going to conceive, then it is her practice to expel the sperm produced by both partners whenever she wishes to do so. If however she is going to conceive, the sperm is not expelled, but retained by the womb. For when the womb has received the sperm closes up and retains it, because the moisture causes the womb orifice to contract. Then both what is provided by the man and what is provided by the woman is mixed together. if the woman is experienced in matters of childbirth, and takes when the sperm is retained, she will know the precise day, which she has conceived.

Now here is a further point. What the woman emits is sometimes stronger, and sometimes weaker; and this applies also to what the man emits. In fact both partners alike contain both male and female sperm (the male being stronger than the female must of course originate from a stronger sperm Here is a further point: if (a) both partners produce a strong sperm, then a male is the result, whereas if (b) they produce a weak form, then a female is the result. But if (c) one part produces one kind of sperm, and the other another, then the resultant sex is determined by whichever sperm prevails in quantity.

For suppose that the weaker sperm is much greater in quantity than the stronger sperm then the stronger is overwhelmed and, being mixed with the weak results in a female. If on the contrary the strong sperm is greater in quantity than the weak, and the weak is overwhelmed then it results in a male."

In Section 8 sperm is said to come from the whole body of each parent, weak coming from the weak parts, and strong from the strong parts.

In the treatise on The Nature of the Child (section 14, p.326) it is stated that the embryo is nourished by maternal blood, which flows to the foetus and coagulates, forming the embryonic flesh. Section 15 describes the umbilical as the means by which foetal respiration is carried on.

Section 17 describes the development of the embryo.

As the flesh grows it is formed into distinct members by breath. Each thing in it goes to its similar - the dense to dense, the rare to the rare, and the fluid to the fluid. Each settles in its appropriate place, corresponding to the part from which it came and to which it is akin. I mean that those parts which came from a dense part in the parent body are themselves dense, while those from a fluid part are fluid, and with all the other parts: they all obey the same formula in the process of growth. The bones grow hard as a result of coagulating action of heat; moreover they send out branches like a tree. Both the internal and external parts of the body now become more distinctly articulated. The head begins to project from the shoulders, and the upper and lower arms from the sides. The legs separate from each other, and the sinews spring up around the joints. The mouth opens up. The nose and ears project from the flesh and become perforated, while the eyes are filled with a clear fluid1. The sex of genitals becomes plain. The entrails too are formed into distinct parts. Moreover, the upper portions of the body now respire through the mouth and nostrils, with the result the belly is inflated and the intestines, inflated from above, cut off respiration through the umbilicus and put an end to it. A passage outside is formed from the belly and intestine through the anus, and another one through the bladder.

18. Sections 18 continues that the period of articulation (the period in which the limbs are differentiated)is forty-two days for the female and for a boy thirty days.

By now the foetus is formed. This stage is reached, for the female foetus, in forty-two days at maximum, and for the male, in thirty days at maximum. This is the period for articulation in most cases, take or give a little. And the lochial discharge too after birth is usually completed within forty-two days if the child is a girl. At least this is the longest period, which completes it, but it would still be safe even if it took only twenty-five days. If the child is a boy, the discharge takes thirty days - again the longest period, but there is no danger even if it takes only twenty days. During the latter part of the period the amount which flows is very small. In young women, the discharge takes a smaller number of days; more, when women are older. It is the women who are having their first child who suffer the most pain during the birth and during the subsequent discharge, and those who have had fewer children suffer more than those who have had a greater number."

Section 22 -27 compares the animal embryo with plant seeds, and concludes that from beginning to end the process of growth in plants and in humans is exactly the same.

In Section 30 there is an important passage in which the author discusses the phenomena of birth. and its relation to food.

It concludes, those, which have least food for the foetus, come quickest to birth and vice versa.

1. This has also been translated as "'The ears are opened, and the eyes, which are filled with a clear liquid." and compared to the Hadith of the Prophet Mohammad (Salla Allah Ta'alah 'Alaihi Wa Salam), 'I worship Him Who made my face and formed it, and opened my hearing and eyesight'".

However, the translation is in Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983 reads "The nose and ears project from the flesh and become perforated, while the eyes are filled with a clear fluid" .is clearly referring to embryo development, and is totally different to the Hadith of the Prophet (Salla Allah Ta'alah 'Alaihi Wa Salam). However, the Hadith is talking about something completely different, i.e. acknowledging the bounties of the creator, whist Hippocrates is referring to embryo development..

This example demonstrated the biased and subjective interpretation used by some individuals.

3. Aristotle and embryology

Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher and scientist who wrote over 400 books on many different branches of learning. His main embryological compendium was that entitled On the Generation of Animals. Aristotle dissected and examined many different types of animal embryos, mammalian and cold blooded. It is also possible that he dissected an aborted human embryo (Ogle, W. Aristotle on the Parts of Animals, Kegan Paul, London, 1882).

A central part of Aristotle's ideas on embryology was the concept of the menstrual blood coagulating to form the embryo. He regarded menstrual blood as a kind of semen, which required the male semen to initiate development of the embryo by spontaneous generation

"The foregoing discussion will have made it clear that the female, though it does not contribute any semen to generation, yet contributes something, viz., the substance constituting the menstrual fluid (or the corresponding substance in bloodless animals). But the same is apparent if we consider the matter generally, from the theoretical standpoint. Thus: there must be that which generates, and that out of which it generates ; and even if these two be united in one, at any rate they must differ in kind, and in that the essence of each of them is distinct. In those animals in which these two faculties are separate, the body - that is to say the physical nature- of the active partner and of the passive must be different. Thus, if the male is the active partner, the one which originates the movement, and the female qua female is the passive one, surely what the female contributes to the semen of the male will be not semen but material. And this is in fact what we find happening; for the natural substance of the menstrual fluid is to be classed as "prime matter." (Aristotle (English trans. A. L. Peck, Heinemann, 1942 edition, Generation of Animals, p.111, 729a).

Aristotle had opened hen's eggs at different stages and describes the order of formation of the embryo;

"How, then, are the other parts formed? Either they are all formed simultaneously - heart, lung, liver, eye, and the rest of them - or successively, as we read in the poems ascribed to Orpheus, where he says that the process by which an animal is formed resembles the knitting of a net. As for simultaneous formation of the parts, our senses tell us plainly that this does not happen: some of the parts are clearly to be seen present in the embryo while others are not. And our failure to see them is not because they are too small; this is certain, because although the lung is larger in size than the heart it makes its appearance later in the original process of formation" (Generation of Animals, p.147, 734a).

Aristotle continues to describes embryonic development by comparing it with the action of rennet and yeast

"The action of the semen of the male in" setting" the female's secretion in the uterus is similar to that rennet upon milk. Rennet is milk which contains vital heat, as semen does, and this integrates the homogeneous substance and makes it "set." As nature of milk and the menstrual fluid is one and the same, the action of the semen upon the substance of the menstrual fluid is the same as that of rennet upon milk. Thus when the " setting " is effected, i.e., when the bulky portion " sets," the fluid portion comes off; and as the earthy portion solidifies membranes form all round its outer surface.

Once the fetation has " set," it behaves like seeds sown in the ground. The first principle (of growth) is present in the seeds themselves too, and as soon as this, which at first was present potentially, has become distinct, a shoot and a root are thrown under it, the root being the channel by which nourishment is obtained, for of course the plant needs material for growth. So too in the fetation, in a way all the parts are present potentially, but the first principle has made the most headway, and on that account the first to become distinct in actuality is the heart" (Generation of Animals, p.191, 739b).

Later on, he also says,

"The reason for this is on a par with the reason why yeast grows. Yeast, like these, is tall in bulk to start with and gets larger : this growth is due to its more solid portion turning fluid, and the fluid turning in to puenma. This is the handiwork of the soul-heat. In the case of animals, of the heat of the humour blend with it in the case of the yeast. Eggs thus grow of necessity on account of this use (i.e., they contain a yeast-like residue), but also they grow for the sake of what is better, since it is possible for them to obtain all their growth in uterus owing to the prolific habit of these animals." (Generation of Animals, p.305, 755a).

Aristotle describes embryonic growth;

"Beginning at the heart, the blood-vessels extend all over the body. They may be compared to the skeleton models which are traced out on the walls of buildings, since the parts are situated around the blood vessels, because they are formed out of them.

For the rest go to
http://www.quranicstudies.com/article76.html

since it's an lengthly article elobrating every detail.

I think most people educated in Religious History agree that the Bible and Torah are complete fabrications taken from earlier religions. Most of the stories are just retellings from earlier peoples myths. In some instances almost exact copies. Did you know that many early Christians THEMSELVES (~50%) didn’t even believe that a Jesus character ever existed (they thought Jesus was just an allegory). As a matter of fact there is no contemporary evidence Jesus did exist and on the contrary there’s supporting evidence he didn’t!

How does that diatribe relate to what you wrote :)

Basically I’m saying that neither the Bible nor the Torah were corrupted. There is no evidence that says they were.


They are what they always were.

When we look back in history we see over and over and over again and again, religions copying other religions and turning them into something somewhat new but principly the same. That we must agree on yes? (for example, the Greek and Roman pantheons or the Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Syrian etc.. Mystery Religions).

7x7 two questions:

1) With that said doesn’t it stand to reason that Islam would be a copy of another religion? After all – it does say that it is and has stayed true where the other religions fell off to the wayside. If you just stop and think.

Just think.

Almost all religions just copied from earlier religions making improvements and calling themselves the true religions. Doesn’t that SOUND a little (just a little) like what you are trying to say? Maybe, just maybe, you’ve fallen into the trap of all past religions?

(Either that or Islam just happens to be the one instant where it is true - out of the literally thousands of other religions that had made or are making the same claim).


With this in mind you can see from my point of view can't you? It seems much more likely (to me anyway) that you were raised in a country that is predominantly Islamic and in a family that are Muslims. Hence you were raised from a very early age to believe pretty much essentially the way in which you do.

So you believe as such.

That certainly stands to reason from my point of view.

For example. Many North Koreans worship their dear leader as a God on Earth. They were raised to believe he is God incarnate. So millions believe as such. I see no difference between be raised to believe Kim Sung Il II is God and being raised to believe that Mohammed is the last Prophet. Both just take a faith to believe as such and (most importantly) both are essentially assured to be believed when taught to children from an early age.

So my question: Is there a chance you could be fooled just like all these other people?

2) This may be a difficult one, but I’d like a straight answer if you would – that is simply Yes or No.

(i) If you were born in ancient Japan. Say in the Year 400. You parents were Shinto and raised you to believe in the Shinto religion and to worship at the family alter and to give thanks to the multiple of gods. Do you think you’d believe in the Shinto religion?

(ii) If you were raised in the Hindu religion in the year 600 do you think you’d be Hindu?

(iii) If you were raised as a Tibetan Buddhist Monk do you think that you’d worship as a Buddhists?
Peace with you

Firstly, Islam is not a new religion but the final culmination and fulfillment of the same basic truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people.
Allah SWT has send approx 124,000 Prophets and Messengers(some are mentioned in the Qu'ran while others are not) all over the world to to teach that there is only One God and stop worshipping idols.
Allah Almighty says: “ And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods. Then some of them (there were) whom Allah guided, and some of them (there were) upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for the deniers!.” (An-Nahl: 36) He Almighty also says, “There was not any community except a Warner who lived among them.” (Fatir :24).

However, the Qur'an did not give us the names and stories of all the Messengers and Prophets who were sent by Allah to various nations and groups. We have only 25 Prophets and Messengers who are mentioned in the Qur'an by name. About other Prophets and Messengers Allah Almighty says, “And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee …” (An-Nisaa’: 164)

-ergo- why there is some sort of similarity between the ancient religions. Unfortunaly, they have been alterd and went astry. Furthermore, it's a known fact the Bible and the Torah contain contradictions and major doctrinal issues such as the trinity or the status of Prophet Jesus (pbuh)

That's why Allah SWT has sent the Seal of the Prophets - Muhammed (saw) to spread the final and complete Message to mankind and not to a certain people and the Qu'ran as the guidance book.



Lastly, don’t you think it’s ironic that God only sent prophets to the peoples of the Middle East? While the vast majority of humans that God also created were sent nothing?

Isn’t it more likely that the people of the ME didn’t interact enough with the people from far away lands enough for those myths to have become part of the ME religions?

That's where your wrong my friend. As I stated above, Allah SWT has sent approx 124,000 Prophets and messengers to every nation to teach that there is only One God.

I'm not sure if this is still relevent? I don't understand: 1400 years? I thought we cleared this up - we don't know what happened pre-universe.
Peace

We do know how the universe was formed --Big Bang theory which is supported with many factual evidences. Moreover, in the Qu'ran- it states that the universe is still expanding along with many other astronomical facts

Maybe you covered this and i didnt see it but amongst all the things you claim to be scientific facts in the Quran something painfully obvious sticks out, the first line of one of your early quotes, man was made from clay, does clay have more than one meaning? Also if something has more than one meaning it can be read with either meaning depending on what the person reading wants it to mean.


* Man was made from water (21:30 ,24 :45 ,25 :54 )
* Man was made from dust/soil (3:59 ,30 :20 ,35 :11 )
* Man was made from sounding [extremely dry] clay from black stinking mud (15:26 )
* Man was raised from the earth (11:61 )

Besides these verses, Al-Saaffaat37 : 11 gives an even different picture, as it says that man was created from such soil that sticks to one's hands, or sticky soil. The verse reads as:
http://www.understanding-islam.com/images/quran/037saaffaat-011.gif
We created them from a sticky soil.

If someone says that I made a cake from flour (soil) and then says I made a cake from water (water), and then says I made this cake from a solution of flour and water (mud, sticky soil), and then says that I made this cake from a dried out solution of flour and water (sounding clay from black stinking mud) and then says I brought the cake out from the oven (raised from the earth), a person may say that the statements are contradictory. But it is quite obvious that they are not. These statements inform us of not only the major ingredients of cake (man) but also give us some information regarding the stages from which these ingredients were made to go through for the ultimate production of the cake (man).

* Two major ingredients in man's creation are soil and water;
* The soil and water took the shape of sticky mud;
* The sticky mud was left to dry out till it became hard (sounding clay);
* The total process beginning from the mixing of soil and water till man's birth took place on this planet called "earth".

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=102

* Man was made from water (21:30 ,24 :45 ,25 :54 )
* Man was made from dust/soil (3:59 ,30 :20 ,35 :11 )
* Man was made from sounding [extremely dry] clay from black stinking mud (15:26 )
* Man was raised from the earth (11:61 )
Out of all these points, to my knowledge the first is remotely correct, since a high percentage of our bodies are water, and the fourth possably is remotely correct depending on how you read it, theres a difference between being raised on earth and being raised from earth.
As for the rest of what you said, if man were that simple to make i'd have a million in my garden, yet strangly i dont, we have established clay means clay as opposed to something else and man comes from clay according to the Quran, yet we know thats not true.

Thank you brothers for such great job, but i hope you make seperate threads for Long text....


KhalidIbnWaleed please edit your post, it is very long and you can not copy-and-paste all the text due to forum rules....please do it


my next POST IS ONLY FOR OPEN-MINEDED people.

An interesting book The Bible, The Qur'an and Science
By Dr. Maurice Bucaille

Due to forum rules, I have to limit the quotes, but you can read it all here:

http://home.swipnet.se/islam/quran-bible.htm

This thread about Islam, so I quote from the parts he talks about Quran and Islam.
First I will quote some note from the introduction:



As a surgeon, Maurice Bucaille has often been in a situation where he was able to examine not only people's bodies, but their souls. This is how he was struck by the existence of Muslim piety and by aspects of Islam which remain unknown to the vast majority of non-Muslims. In his search for explanations which are otherwise difficult to obtain, he learnt Arabic and studied the Qur'an. In it, he was surprised to find statements on natur